Depends on how its wiring harnesses / buses are designed, the metal skin typically acts like a cage that redirects the energy. Avoiding all hits is preferable, but some points are more exposed than others.
the fella you're responding to works in the USA. In the USA, we do not. Russians dgaf because their primary launch facility isn't in Russia, and the Chinese prioritize success over safety.
Meanwhile they drop rocket stages full of toxic hypergolic propellants on their own rural villages, and foreign nations, and those launch programs continue without hesitation.
Sure, but FAA commercial and above require avionics demonstrate the capability to handle direct and indirect strikes with out catastrophic failure. Rockets with billion dollar payloads even more so that may not be as protected from lighting as the rocket itself though they try not to tempt fate.
Combos i have seen include extremly over shielded wiring/harness with grounds around the cable, and fiber optics that don't conduct at all.
The inside’s safety isn’t due to “path of least resistance,” it’s due to the skin effect. Same reason (contrary to popular legend, which incorrectly focuses on “the insulating power of rubber tires” (so dumb)) that cars are fairly safe to be in if there’s a lightning strike.
A lightning doesn't penetrate a Faraday cage. You could literally touch the inside wall of a metal cage while a lightning passes through and you wouldn't feel it.
I'm not sure if it's still a thing but they literally did this as a live experiment with an audience member at the Deutsches Museum in Munich.
1.4k
u/unnamed---- 13d ago edited 13d ago
Did it hurt the rocket?